Table Of ContentTOWARD A
NATURALISTIC
POLITICAL THEORY
TOWARD A
NATURALISTIC
POLITICAL THEORY
Aristotle, Hume, Dewey,
Evolutionary Biology,
and Deep Ecology
TERRY HOY
Libraryof CongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Hoy, Terry.
Toward a naturalisticpoliticaltheory : Aristotle,Hume,Dewey,
evolutionarybiology, and deep ecology / TerryHoy.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesand index.
ISBN 0–275–96750–6 (alk. paper)
1. Politicalscience—Philosophy. 2. Naturalism. 3. Evolution
(Biology) 4. Deepecology. 5. Aristotle—Contributionsin political
science. 6. Hume,David, 1711–1776—Contributionsin political
science. 7. Dewey,John,1859–1952—Contributions
in politicalscience. I. Title.
JA71.H68 2000
320'.01'1—dc21 99–016063
BritishLibrary Cataloguingin PublicationData is available.
Copyright(cid:1) 2000 by Terry Hoy
All rightsreserved. No portionof this book may be
reproduced,by any processor technique,withoutthe
express writtenconsentof the publisher.
Library of CongressCatalog Card Number:99–016063
ISBN: 0–275–96750–6
First publishedin 2000
Praeger Publishers,88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881
An imprintof GreenwoodPublishingGroup, Inc.
www.praeger.com
Printedin the UnitedStatesof America
TM
The paper used in this book complieswith the
PermanentPaper Standardissuedby the National
InformationStandardsOrganization(Z39.48–1984).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Introduction vii
Chapter 1 Aristotelian Naturalism: Classical
Categories and Reconstructive
Orientation 1
Chapter 2 Hume: Natural Sentiments 25
Chapter 3 Dewey: Naturalistic Humanism 43
Chapter 4 Evolutionary Biology 69
Chapter 5 Deep Ecology 93
Conclusion 117
Notes 127
Selected Bibliography 137
Index 141
Introduction
In a study, the intent of which is to defend a concept of a
naturalistic political theory, it is necessary, at the outset,to
clarify the meaning of such an intention as a corrective to
the distortion in the seventeenth century tradition of early
Enlightenment Naturalism. What was distinctive in this
development, it has been commonly recognized, was a
radical break from the classical Aristotelian concept of a
telos of nature as the unfolding of human moral ends and
purpose towards a mechanistic view in which that which
controlshumanbehaviorhastodowithmaterialsubstance
obeying mechanical laws of physics. What controlshuman
behavior is not an end, but a cause; the psychological
mechanism of the human animal.1
The political implication of seventeenth-century mecha-
nistic interpretation in the contribution of Hobbes and
Locke provided an impetus to a concept of reason seen as
instrumental to human passions and desires. According to
Hobbes, a radical egoism and a “war-like” state is char-
acteristic of human beings in a pre-social state of nature,
and it is the desire for self-preservation that leads to the
viii Introduction
development of a sovereign state as an instrument for se-
curity. Locke did not share the Hobbesean view of nature
as the “war of all against all,” but rather a view of nature
as a source of freedom and equality; the natural rights of
life, liberty, and property. The inconveniences of the state
of nature, due to lack of a settled law or impartial author-
ity, becomes the motivation for the social contract by
which individuals enter into civil society for the purpose
of protection of natural rights. But if Locke’s theory was
in opposition to Hobbes’ concept of an absolute sovereign,
he shared the Hobbesean view of the fundamental egoism
of human nature; a concept of pleasure and pain similar
to Hobbes’ concept of self preservation.2 The basic feature
of Lockean liberalism can be seen as a continuity with
nineteenth century tradition of Benthamite utilitarianism:
anethicsthatisderivativefromhumansensations:feelings
of pleasure are good, and pain is to be avoided. The inter-
est of the community is the sum of the interests of the
individuals that compose it, and the role of government is
to promote the greatest happiness of the greater number.
It would be common to believe that it is the Lockean
utilitarian tradition of classical liberalism that, as Louis
Hartz points out, became the underlying consensus of the
American political heritage.3 But what has been a striking
trend in recent political theory is a growing consciousness
of the contradictions and ambiguities that this heritage
has entailed.Therewouldbefewwhowouldwishtodeny
that the historical transformations associated with the
individualistic-utilitarianism tradition of Enlightenment
liberalism were an impetus to the liberative, emancipative
achievement of modernity: the break from the slavery and
class distinctions of ancient civilization; the achievements
ofEnlightenmentmodernityinregardtothespreadofcon-
stitutional democracy and civil liberties; the improvement
in material conditions and health of the vast majority of
citizensinmodernindustrialsociety.Yetthedevelopments
Introduction ix
of the post-Enlightenment era have been witness to the
advent ofcolonialismandimperialism;totalitarianextrem-
ism of Left and Right; two catastrophic wars;theeconomic
structures of capitalism that have enthroned a “Calliclean”
life of endless consumption, growth and bigness; the per-
sistence of inequalities, and social injustice; environmental
degradation due to the ascending of market priorities; the
loss of genuine human community and civic virtues.
What is compelling in contemporary perception of the
“dark side” of Enlightenment modernity does not require
abandoning the contention that it has been at least a rela-
tivegainoverinstitutionalstructuresofancientcivilization
such as slavery, class hierarchy, feudalism, and ecclesi-
astical and political domination. What can be contended,
rather, is that a corrective to the distortion in the
instrumental-utilitarian tradition of liberalism requires
reconstructive orientation in which the authentic achieve-
ment of the Enlightenment can be salvaged from its dis-
tortions and errors. It is the contention of Charles Taylor,
for example, that a central malaise of modernity has been
an “atomism” that he sees to be the product of the sev-
enteenth century contract theory and the primacy of rights
doctrine associated with John Locke. Taylor believes it is
necessarytorecovera social viewof manasonethatholds
that an essential constitutive condition for a human good
is bound up with being in society, a community of lan-
guage and mutual discourse about the good and bad, jus-
tice and injustice.4 Alasdair MacIntyre has become an
influential spokesman for a view that the ethos of mo-
dernity,asaproductoftheEnlightenment,ischaracterized
by a “moral disarray and disorder” in whichdisagreement
about such issues as abortion, war and justice have no
point or arbitration beyond the claim of “emotivism”; in
which all evaluative moral judgments are nothing but the
expression of preference, attitudes and feelings. The
corrective, he believes, must be sought in the recovery of
Description:Hoy establishes a basis for a naturalistic political theory that can be sustained as a continuity from Aristotle through the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment contributions of David Hume, John Dewey, Evolutionary Biology, and Deep Ecology.This entails several contentions. First he argues that the
